Xref: utzoo news.software.b:6598 news.groups:27073 Newsgroups: news.software.b,news.groups Path: utzoo!utgpu!watserv1!maytag!xenitec!edhew From: edhew@xenitec.on.ca (Ed Hew) Subject: Re: news.software.cnews, anyone? Organization: Xenitec Consulting Services, Kitchener, ON, CANADA Date: Sun, 06 Jan 91 16:17:06 GMT Message-ID: <1991Jan06.161706.24906@xenitec.on.ca> Followup-To: news.groups References: <3087@crdos1.crd.ge.COM> In article tim@delluk.uucp (Tim Wright) writes: >In lear@turbo.bio.net (Eliot) writes: > >>Perhaps what we >>should have (after figuring out how to rename groups without pissing >>off the world) is news.software.transport and news.software.readers. >>-- >>Eliot Lear > >That would seem to be the most sensible way of dividing it. Anybody else >think so ? >Tim Wright, Dell Computer Corp. (UK) | Email address >Bracknell, Berkshire, RG12 1RW | Domain: tim@dell.co.uk It might be sensible, but treads on a restructuring of the news.software sub-hierarchy. Somehow I don't think we're really ready for that and wonder how many would really be interested in a complete restructuring vrs a simple split. As I understood it, the intention of the original posting was to simply provide a discrete discussion area for c-news users vrs bnews users. While some have stated that bnews problems are of interest to c-news sites, I don't really believe that. Discussions of what's broken in bnews just don't concern me. I'm similarily of the opinion that bnews admins aren't too interested in the c-news patches and discussions that I _do_ want to see without having to wade through (what to me is) irrelevent traffic. IMHO there is now sufficient volume on both topics to support a split. Please note that I'm redirecting this discussion to news.groups -- Ed. A. Hew , XeniTec Consulting Services or if you're really stuck: ..!{watmath|lsuc}!xenitec!eah